HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1835.Grievors.13-12-09 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2007-1835, 2008-3004, 2008-3005, 2008-3081, 2008-3082, 2008-3083
UNION#2007-0369-0073, 2008-0369-0393, 2008-0369-0394, 2008-0369-0396, 2008-0369-0397,
2008-0369-0398
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Grievors) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Richard Blair
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Caroline Cohen
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
CONFERENCE CALL November 25, 2013
- 2 -
Decision
[1] On March 3, 2011, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement that provided, amongst
other things, that WDHP/Human Rights training would be given to “all staff” at CNCC.
Specifics were set out regarding the development and delivery of the agreed upon training.
[2] In May of 2012 the parties attempted to negotiate a follow up Memorandum of Agreement.
It became apparent in the discussions between the parties regarding this supplementary
Memorandum that there was a disagreement about the extent, if any, of the Employer’s
ongoing obligation to provide this WDHP training.
[3] The Board was provided with the relevant documents prior to a conference call being held.
The parties were given an opportunity to set out their respective positions and supporting
arguments.
[4] As discussed with the parties, it is not my intention to reproduce the terms of the original
confidential Memorandum of Agreement or the supplemental documents. Further, I will
not set the submissions capably made by counsel. Rather, as agreed, this decision will
simply provide direction to the parties with little or no reasons.
[5] Turning to the first area of dispute, I disagree with the Union’s view that the Memorandum
mandates the Employer to give ongoing training to all new employees in the future. In my
view, the reference to “all staff” meant all staff at CNCC as of the date of the signing of the
Agreement, not all staff as that staff is employed in the future. Indeed, the Memorandum
itself refers to the “completion” of the training. The use of the word completion would lead
one to conclude that there is to be an end to the Employer’s obligation to provide the
training set out in the Memorandum of Agreement.
[6] The second area of dispute was whether the employees who did not attend the training for
reasons including leaves of absence, illness or apparent intentional avoidance must be
given training to satisfy the terms of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the fact that the
Employer has held many sessions in its efforts to fulfill its obligations under the
Memorandum, “all staff” has not been trained. They should be. All staff employed as of the
date of the signing of the Memorandum should be trained in accordance with the terms of
the Agreement. I appreciate that the Employer has made significant effort to train all staff
but unfortunately, the training of all staff has not yet been accomplished. The words “all
staff” are not qualified in the Agreement by phrases such as “to the extent possible” or “as
can reasonably be scheduled”. There is no reason to give the words “all staff” anything
other than their ordinary or plain meaning.
- 3 -
[7] This training has been expensive for the Employer and it has already held many sessions. It
makes sense for the parties to meet to discuss how best to provide the remaining training
perhaps with a view to cost effectiveness. I suggest such a meeting be held within a
reasonable period of time following the issuance of this decision.
[8] The parties agreed in their submissions that no staff should be allowed to simply bypass
this training. The Union acknowledged that the Employer has a “host of methods” of
ensuring that employees attend this mandatory training.
[9] I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9th day of December 2013.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair